Acquittal Archives - Page 2 of 41 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

Distinction Between Assault and Jostling/Struggling — The court distinguished between an assault, which involves an intentional application of force or a threat to apply force, and jostling or struggling that may occur during an attempt to resist arrest or escape — The mere act of jostling or struggling, without evidence of intent to assault or use criminal force, does not constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC. Necessity of Compliance with Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. for Prosecuting under Section 186 IPC —The court held that for prosecuting an offence under Section 186 IPC (obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions), it is mandatory to follow the procedure laid down in Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which requires a complaint or report by the public servant concerned or by some other person authorized by him in writing.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 600 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : B.R. Gavai, K. V. Viswanathan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

Acquittal Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — The appellant lent Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondent, who issued a cheque as a guarantee — The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds — Whether the respondent committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the IPC — The appellant argued that the respondent failed to repay the loan and intentionally cheated him — The respondent claimed the cheque was issued for security purposes to a third party and denied the loan transaction — The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment that favored the respondent’s acquittal — The court found contradictions in the appellant’s statements and lack of evidence regarding the loan transaction — The court emphasized the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, 1881, and the burden on the respondent to rebut it — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent’s acquittal was upheld.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 586 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI DATTATRAYA — Appellant Vs. SHARANAPPA — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 323 read with Section 120B — Murder —Dispute over water supply — They were sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, and the conviction was upheld by the High Court — The main issue was whether the appellants were rightly convicted based on the evidence presented — The appellants argued that the evidence was unreliable, key witnesses were not credible, and there were procedural lapses in the investigation — The State argued that the evidence was sufficient, the FIR was lodged promptly, and the injuries and recoveries corroborated the prosecution’s case —The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, finding the evidence insufficient and the investigation flawed — The Court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies, procedural lapses, and lack of credible evidence linking the appellants to the crime —The Court emphasized the importance of reliable evidence and proper investigation procedures, citing previous judgments to support its decision —The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted, with the Court highlighting the need for credible evidence and proper investigation.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 590 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALLARAKHA HABIB MEMON ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Acquittal SC/ST

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 4(2) – The Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA) is facing disputes over allegations of caste-based discrimination and other complaints filed against trainees and administrators – The main issue is whether the complaints filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were substantiated and whether FIRs should be registered – The appellants argued that the complaints were not made in public view and lacked specific details, thus not constituting offenses under the Act of 1989 – The respondent claimed that the complaints were ignored by the police and not investigated as mandated by the Act of 1989 – The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, upholding the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order that dismissed the application for FIR registration under the Act of 1989 – The court found the allegations vague, did not specify the offenses, and were not made in public view – The impugned judgment of the High Court directing the registration of an FIR was set aside.

May 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 437 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRITI AGARWALLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 and 120B – Murder – Conspiracy and homicide – Recovery of Body from the Pond – The appeals challenge the High Court’s dismissal of the appellants’ criminal appeals and the upholding of their convictions and sentences by the trial court – The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and that the chain of proven circumstances does not conclusively point to their guilt – The respondent-State maintained that the trial court and High Court’s concurrent findings were based on a cogent appreciation of evidence, warranting no interference – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court and trial court judgments, and acquitted the appellants of all charges, directing their immediate release – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the body was solely based on the appellants’ statements and that the chain of evidence was incomplete – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

May 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 299 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVISHANKAR TANDON — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – The main issue is the reliability of eyewitnesses and the identification of the assailants who fired at the victim resulting in his death – The appellant’s counsel argued that the eyewitnesses’ testimonies are unreliable and that the incident’s description is improbable, suggesting that the appellant was falsely implicated – The State opposed the appeal, asserting that the conviction is based on concurrent findings of facts by the trial court and the High Court – The Court found the eyewitnesses’ behavior unnatural and their presence at the crime scene doubtful – It also noted significant gaps in the prosecution’s narrative – The Court referenced previous cases to support its decision, emphasizing the improbability of the prosecution’s story and the unnatural conduct of the witnesses – The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ judgments, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release if not required in any other case.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 384 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGVIR SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s).…

Acquittal

“Acquittal in Murder Case: Prosecution Fails to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 149 – Murder – Acquittal – The court found that the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence linking the appellants to the crime, and the testimony of eyewitnesses was inconsistent and contradictory – The court also noted that the theory of “last seen together” was not sufficient to establish guilt, as the deceased was seen in the company of other individuals after being seen with the accused – The court set aside the convictions of the appellants and ordered their release, unless their custody was required for some other offences.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 376 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALAUDDIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and…

Acquittal

”High Threshold Not Met: Supreme Court Blocks Trial of Additional Accused in Murder Case” Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 and 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Issuing of the summons – The appeals concern a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the appellants to face trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC, based on a High Court decision dated 04.04.2023 – The main issue is the sufficiency of material against the appellants prompting the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The appellants argue that they were incorrectly named in the FIR and subsequent statements due to a longstanding family enmity, and there is no strong evidence against them – The State contends that even if the trial against existing accused has abated, there is no bar in summoning the appellants to start the trial afresh – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the summoning order, and the High Court’s judgment dismissing the Section 482 petition – The Court found that the evidence against the appellants was not strong enough to meet the higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The Court referenced the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence – The Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in issuing the summons, and the High Court should have quashed the order under Section 482 Cr.P.C – The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 366 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Acquittal

“Murder Conviction Overturned! Supreme Court Acquits Appellant Due to Inconsistent Eyewitness Accounts and Insufficient Evidence” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Property Dispute – The High Court affirmed the conviction, which led to this appeal – The appeal challenges the reliability of eyewitnesses and the recovery of the murder weapon, questioning the appellant’s conviction – The appellant claims false implication, questioning the credibility of eyewitnesses and the voluntariness of the extra-judicial confession – The State argues that the conviction is based on correct evidence assessment and that the appellant’s guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and directed his release, if not required in another case – The Court found inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and doubted their presence at the crime scene, leading to the acquittal – The Court scrutinized the eyewitness testimonies, the extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of the weapon, finding them insufficient for conviction – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellant’s acquittal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 349 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JASOBANTA SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ORISSA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal

“Conviction Quashed After 18 Years: Supreme Court Acquits Man Due to Flawed Identification and Doubtful Evidence” Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 3(a) and 4(a)(i) – Arms Act, 1958 – Section 27(1) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 307,143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427 and 449 read with Section 149 – The case involves who appealed against his conviction under various sections of the IPC and other acts – The incident occurred on March 6, 2006, involving an unlawful assembly, murder, and grievous injuries with deadly weapons – The appeal challenges the High Court’s partial allowance of Appellant’s appeal, which set aside some convictions while confirming others, and modified the sentences – The petitioner argued that identification in court without a Test Identification Parade, after four and a half years, is unreliable. They also contested the motive attributed to the appellant and the credibility of the recovered iron rod with alleged blood stains – The respondent emphasized the credibility of the injured eyewitness (PW-2) and the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, which found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the previous judgments, and acquitted the appellant of all charges, directing his immediate release if not required in another case – The Court found the identification of the appellant in court, without prior identification parades, to be insufficient for maintaining the conviction, especially given the time elapsed since the incident – The Court questioned the preservation of blood stains on the recovered iron rod over two years and two monsoons, casting doubt on the prosecution’s evidence – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellant’s acquittal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 350 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH @ UNNI @ VADI SURESH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

You missed

High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings precludes conducting a ‘mini trial’ by assessing evidence credibility; consistency requires acknowledging coordinate bench decisions involving co-accused.

Quashing FIR under 482 CrPC impermissible when complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences; allegations accepted true, investigation not thwarted based on delay, civil suit, or witness status if complicity alleged.

Appointment secured on merit cannot be invalidated for an unintentional category error in a qualifying certificate if no undue advantage accrued therefrom.

Under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act, 1996, courts lack power to modify awards but can set aside, partially set aside (sever) severable parts, or correct computational/clerical errors.

Supreme Court of India Judgements

Category: Acquittal

You missed